1.1.3 - factors affecting obedience and dissent Flashcards
what is a situational factor?
variables in the environment that impact levels of obedience
what are the situational factors that could affect obedience?
momentum of compliance, proximity, status/legitimacy, presence of others
what does momentum of compliance mean?
people are more likely to show obedience if the requests are initially easy and become progressively more demanding
what research supports the idea of momentum of compliance?
Milgram and Burger both started with low voltages and went up in 15V increments so they became more extreme
what does proximity mean?
people are more likely to show obedience if the authoritative figure is close to them
what research supports the idea of proximity?
in Milgram’s variation 7, instructions were given by telephone and only 22.5% were fully obedient
what does status/legitimacy mean?
people are more likely to show obedience if the authoritative figure is in a position of status, or the setting seems legitimate
what research supports the idea of status/legitimacy?
in Milgram’s variation 13 where an ordinary man gave instructions, only 20% were fully obedient
in Milgram’s variation 10 which took place in a rundown office block, only 47.5% were fully obedient
what does presence of others mean?
people are more likely to show obedience if there are other people watching or who have shown obedience before them
what research supports the idea of presence of others?
in Milgram’s rebel peers variation where two other teachers refused to continue, only 10% were fully obedient
Burger’s modelled refusal condition - 63.3% obedience level
what is an individualistic culture?
a culture that values independence (typical of cultures in North America/Western Europe)
what is a collectivist culture?
a culture that values community and emphasises the needs of groups over the needs of the individual
how can culture provide an explanation for obedience?
people from collectivist cultures may be more likely to show obedience and respect those of a higher status while those from individualistic cultures may be more likely to defy authority figures
what is an example of supporting evidence for the idea that culture affects obedience?
a Jordanian study conducted in 1977 by Shanab and Yahya with child participants (6-16) found 73% gave maximum shocks to children of the same gender (which is higher than Milgram’s 65% in his baseline study because Jordan is a collectivist culture)
what could be a counter-argument for the idea that culture affects obedience?
criticise the methodology - in Shanab and Yahya’s 1977 study, they used a younger child sample than Milgram, so they may have obeyed the orders more due to other factors such as the authority figure having increased status as an adult
this nullifies the differences and suggests culture doesn’t play a significant role in obedience
what is an example of contradictory evidence for the idea that culture affects obedience?
Shanab and Yahya carried out another experiment in Jordan in 1978 and used students as the participants - obedience levels were 62% which is very similar to Milgram’s results, even though the cultures are different
Blass (2012) compared average obedience rates in studies conducted outside North America and found them significantly not different outside the US (66%) and in the US (61%)
which individual differences could affect obedience?
personality and gender
what is an example of contradictory evidence for the idea that gender affects obedience?
in Burger’s baseline condition, 12 male and 16 female participants went to continue after 150V - this difference isn’t statistically significant
when Milgram repeated his baseline study with females, 65% went to 450V which is the same as with males
Blass (2000) reviewed 9 replications of Milgram’s research - in 8 of 9 of these he found no evidence of gender differences
what is an example of supporting evidence for the idea that gender affects obedience - women more obedient than men?
Sheridan and King (1972) ordered participants to give real electric shocks to a live puppy - 100% of females were fully obedient but only 54% of males (however the women showed distress by crying)
what is an example of supporting evidence for the idea that gender affects obedience - men more obedient than women?
Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia - 40% of males were fully obedient but only 16% of females
why might obedience levels differ between genders?
men often follow the ‘ethic of justice’ principle - focus on equality, fairness and having a detached outlook to avoid bias
women often follow the ‘ethic of care’ principle - focus on interpersonal relationships and caring for those in need
what is personality?
a set of traits relating to an individual’s character that remain relatively stable over time
what did Adorno suggest in his theory of authoritarian personality?
people with this type of personality grew up with strict parents whose rules they had to obey - therefore, they obey figures of authority but are dismissive to individuals below them
what are characteristics of an authoritarian personality?
- obedient to authority figures
- hostile to those below them
- view things rigidly (black and white thinking)
- unusually intolerant to people that are weak/different
what are dispositional factors?
variables within yourself that impact whether you obey eg. personal traits
what should dispositional factors be used for?
to explain the behaviour of one or two individuals eg. why they don’t obey - can’t use to explain group behaviour because they look at reasons within individuals that make them different
how does authoritarian parenting impact the child?
the child has a harsh upbringing with little love and lots of punishment - this leads to both fear and hatred of their parents - this is translated to excessive respect of authority figures and their hatred and anger is displaced onto others
what is supporting evidence for Adorno’s theory of authoritarian personality?
Elms and Milgram (1966) got 40 participants from Milgram’s baseline study - 20 who went to 450V and 20 who refused to continue before this - and made them complete Adorno’s F scale, and asked them open-ended questions about their relationship with their parents
The obedient participants scored higher on the F scale and were less close to their father during childhood, increasing the credibility of Adorno’s theory that there is correlation between personality and obedience
what does locus of control describe?
the perception you have over the control of your behaviour, measured on a scale from high internal to high external
what does internal locus of control mean?
people perceive that they have control over the things that happen to them and their behaviour, so are more likely to take personal responsibility for their actions
what does external locus of control mean?
people believe they are influenced by external influences which they can’t control, such as luck
how does locus of control impact obedience?
people with an external locus of control are more likely to be obedient - believe command is beyond their control and any consequences aren’t due to their actions
people with an internal locus of control are less likely to be obedient - believe they have the option to choose whether or not they obey
situational factors affecting disobedience - salience of victim’s suffering?
in Milgram’s variations, obedience fell when participants could see (40%) or touch (30%) victim
participants felt greater personal responsibility for their actions so shifted from agency to autonomous state
victim’s visible suffering provoked empathy in participant
situational factors affecting disobedience - exposure to disobedient models?
in Milgram’s rebel peers variation where two confederates refused to continue before participant, obedience fell to 10%
pressure participants felt to conform to group norm of disobedience was greater than pressure felt to obey experimenter
confederates’ behaviour reminded them of possibility of defying experimenter
withdrawal of confederates sharpened participant’s sense of personal responsibility
situational factors affecting disobedience - factors that alter participant’s sense of personal responsibility?
in Milgram’s original study, participant declared ‘I’m not gonna kill that man’ but then continued when he established experimenter would take responsibility
destructive obedience reduced when people feel personally responsible for their actions
dispositional factors affecting disobedience - ability to empathise with suffering of others?
Oliner conducted study of rescuers who sheltered escaped Jews in Nazi Europe, defying regime - compared to 126 non-rescuers, the 406 rescuers reported upbringing which emphasised social norm of helping others
people in Milgram’s study disobeyed for empathetic reasons due to their own experiences or when suffering became more salient
dispositional factors affecting disobedience - early protest?
Rochat and Modigliani (1995) analysed events in French village Le Chambon during Nazi occupation - citizens collectively defied Nazi attempts to have them persecute war refugees and saved lives of thousands
analysis suggested that key to this sustained and collective defiance was that it stated early before pattern of obedience emerged
supporting evidence for dissent - Gamson et al. (1982)?
a group of volunteers were filmed while discussing whether an oil company should take legal action against a petrol station manager for his offensive lifestyle, but a confederate steered the conversation in favour of sacking the manager - at the end participants were asked to sign a consent form to use the tape in court
16/33 groups collectively refused to sign form, in 25/33 the majority refused and 9/33 threatened legal action (shows people especially groups, will rebel against just authority)
what factors did Smith and Mackie suggest may have led to dissent in Gamson et al.?
- shared group identity and agreement of the group
- reactance (rebelling against attempts to control their behaviour)
- systematic processing - rebellion more likely when people have time to think carefully and consider their actions
